Cop Tazers Handcuffed Women In The Back. She Is Now Braindead.

reply to post by andersensrm
As I suspected.

Just feelings, that's almost like the scientific method for you.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by andersensrm

 

As I suspected.

Just feelings, that's almost like the scientific method for you.

No its not.

I'm a long time lurker here, primarily because I typically have little to say about topics I've not thoroughly researched. But, in topics such as this, I believe I can give a little insight to officer action when situations as this occur.

For starters, I am a former LEO. As part of my duty, I was formally trained in use of many less than lethal means, including the taser. The device use in the video posted by the OP is the Taser International X-26. The same device I was trained to carry. The same device I deployed in the line of duty, saving my own life on one occasion, and the same device I was exposed to with full effect as part of my mandated training.

I see a lot of comments asking why the officer simply did not chase her down and tackle her. To understand why he may have chosen taser deployment, you have to understand the Use of Force Continuum currently in place. What I will cover is generally accepted nationwide.

Use of Force generally covers 5 levels of force as follows:

1) Uniformed Officer Presence
2) Verbal Commands
3) Soft Physical Techniques (i.e. escort, O.C., soft restraints such as a restraint chair, pepperball and Taser)
4) Hard Physical Techniques (i.e. strikes such as a punch/kicks, baton, throws or "tackles)
5 Deadly Force (i.e. gun, vehicle)

I will not attempt to speculate on anything.. There seems to be a lot of missing details, and I will only explain what happened from an LEO's perspective based on what is shown in the video.

An officer is escorting a female prisoner for transport. At this point, the subject is already under arrest. Unless operating under Federal guidelines, for example transporting Federal inmates, the Officer will walk behind the subject. While it is typically against policy to hand cuff an individual in the front, officers will make exceptions for inmates for comfort. You give a little, you get a little, and it is generally overlooked.

When the individual attempts to run, this is not a case of fleeing officers. The female is already an inmate. They are attempting to escape custody. So far as I know, this is a felony in every state. At this point, it does become a felony act in progress, witnessed by an on duty officer who is bound by law to act in his capabilities to prevent the escape.

As shown, the inmate is hand cuffed in the front. This presents a serious risk to officer safety. From personal experience, any one striking you with hand cuffs can cause serious bodily injury. Depending on the use, it can be considered a deadly weapon.

By opting for Taser deployment, he has chosen a lower level of force (2) in attempts to gain control of the situation. Statistically, the officer and inmate are both at lower risk of injury when the taser is involved. This is generally favored by the court and department. With the circumstances as is, taser deployment was the preferred means from an LEO perspective.

Probes were deployed and taser had full effect, referred to as Neuro-Muscular Interruption (NMI). If it is possible, officers will assist the subject to the ground to prevent injury. With the subject on the run, cuffed in the front and in the act of committing a felony offense, this was implausible. He decision was sound and his actions were lawful and well within his departmental policy.

For those of you who believe tasers to be weapons of torture, I beg to differ. I have been tased. ...numerous times. Exposure in training. Exposure during an altercation where I simply rode the taser cycle with them, applying cuffs the moment the cycle ended and I was able to. My instructor was tased 63 times in a single day while filming a Taser International training video. To the overwhelming majority, it is no more than 5 seconds of hell. But, given enough cases, you'll find at least one person that would die from drinking a can of pepsi.

I've also read many comments in this thread about siding with law, or siding with what's right. Our legal system is a product of society. When frivolous lawsuits become rampant, every business, corporation, LE agency etc will take every legal measure to avoid the hassle of lawsuits. Whether you agree with the officer actions or not, they are law within a system that has become a product of a society that has taken advantage of it. I see complaint after complaint about how the government is taking away more and more freedoms. I can see Big Brothers side of things when in this thread alone, members of THIS society will openly make death threats against those who's sole purpose is to protect it.

If you truly disagree with how things are, write your congressman, become a cop or even run for President. Until you officially renounce your citizenship, you chose to live under the laws of this nation. If you want change, fight for it. Ranting on the internet about killing cops is no worse than whatever even regime you think to rule the world and whatever else kids believe these days.

...ran out of room. I should also note that officers are held accountable for their inmates. She was running towards a highway. The officer would have been responsible for her death and the deaths of anyone else if there had been an accident.

Once again, back to the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits and measures taken to combat them.

First of all, I don't belive the trooper wanted to make her brain dead. He just wanted to show her who was boss.
I watched the long version of the dash cam video avalible on youtube. I have a few thoughts on this situation.

1 Tasering a hand cuffed individual. Afraid she was going to run out in traffic and kill someone is BS, more likely she would be caught by another officer and he would have to explain how she got away in the first place.

2. After she hits her head on the pavement, the cop stands over her and doesn't ask if she's okay, he asks " are you stupid "; " now you've got another charge". Her speech becomes slurred as she mumbles "I can't get up"

3. No basic first aid at all. She just lays there on the pavement slipping into a coma (he does radio for EMS).

4. I really like LEO's I respect them, but I do know a few. Many of them seem to think of a taser as a form of field punishment.

5. My conclusion so far is, she was cuffed in the front as a favor, and when she tried to elope she was tased as punishment. If not for the whole coma thing we would have never even heard about this...

reply to post by OpsSpecialist


Thanks for the great post, it's well written and informative.

At this point, it does become a felony act in progress, witnessed by an on duty officer who is bound by law to act in his capabilities to prevent the escape.

...which is overlooked by 99% people in this thread.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Little girl against a big guy with a gun.

To hell with the rules. There should have been a different outcome.

Way too much force. If I had done something like that, even if I was following rules (or orders), I don't know how I could sleep at night after that. Wondering what I could have done differently.

We all do stupid things, things we regret. But in this case a life was lost. It is a huge deal.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Little girl against a big guy with a gun.

To hell with the rules. There should have been a different outcome.

You can always wish for a different outcome, and so do I. But "to hell with rules" is a slippery slope. It's a double edged sword, and not in a good way.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Little girl against a big guy with a gun.

To hell with the rules. There should have been a different outcome.

Way too much force. If I had done something like that, even if I was following rules (or orders), I don't know how I could sleep at night after that. Wondering what I could have done differently.

We all do stupid things, things we regret. But in this case a life was lost. It is a huge deal.

She chose to risk her life. Not the cops problem, although it will probably haunt him, along with all the other people who support the criminals labeling him as evil. 100 years ago would be completely different. Back then people cheered when the criminals were captured or killed. I find it amazing anyone actually wants to be a cop anymore. I say we just get rid of them for a year, see how people like it.

reply to post by andersensrm


100 years ago people were alot less civilized and there was alot less morality and laws.